Impeding Diplomacy with Disdain
August 30, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
A question is bubbling amid conservative-leaning websites, asking whether the New York Times’ executive editor Bill Keller is guilty of committing bad satire or simple bigotry. In a feature for the magazine, Keller suggested that presidential candidates, specifically Republican presidential candidates, should face “tougher questions” about the role faith plays in their lives.
Beginning his essay by making a sly—actually downright passive-aggressive—correlation between religious faith and belief in “space aliens” Keller (who apparently lives so deeply insulated among his own kind as to be unaware that over 90 percent of his countrymen believe in God and over 50 percent even support a national “Day of Prayer”) expressed concern about “putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird . . . Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.”
I would have said Keller was exhibiting narrow-minded bigotry in his piece, but charity tempts me to call him a bad satirist. His paper has since printed a correction, acknowledging that Rick Santorum’s “fervid subset of evangelical Christianity” is plain-old, faulty-but-hardly-fervid Catholicism, with a stated preference for the Latin mass. As Kathleen Parker might say, “oogedy-boogedy.”
A second correction covered Keller’s assertion that “a majority” of Americans believe in extraterrestrials; only one-in-three Americans—Keller’s own columnist, Paul Krugman apparently among them—make that claim.
Others have ably pointed out that Keller’s own paper conveniently displayed minimal interest in the religious beliefs of the candidate Barack Obama or those of his rather fervid pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Democrats are understood to have tamed their religion into obedient torpor—to governance give the glory! Keller’s noble-if-distorted concern for the separation of church and state, meanwhile, is so specious and tiresome that it seems pointless to address.
What I can’t help wondering, though, is why Bill Keller wants to weaken the nation’s diplomatic hand. The Times is a longtime champion of the nuanced efficacy of diplomacy—especially the soft-powered “smart” diplomacy that is the supposed specialty of Democratic administrations—and the greatest diplomatic challenge of the age involves engaging with leaders and governments for which issues of faith are very much to the fore. Determined to embrace all of the social, secular and economic policies that are not working in Europe—even as Europe is beginning to re-think them, themselves—Keller and his enlightened friends are too anxious to play the “crazy-science-hating-fanatics” card on the GOP field of nominees. They should reconsider this, especially in light of the narcissism of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the instability of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and the possibility of theocracies emerging from newly formed Middle Eastern governments.
After the heinous 2008 terror attack on Mumbai, I said the following:
“It is with the language of faith that Islamic terrorism must be engaged and defeated, and therein lies the disconnect for the diplomatic West. Having reasoned itself out of faith, its incomplete arsenal is fit for battle, but not for victory. The West can speak only of borders, boundaries, markets, and measurement. Faith exists beyond boundaries and borders; it defies markets and measurement. The negotiables of the West are worldly and “the world” means nothing in the face of paradise.
Islam, like all faith, is not of this world but of the world to come. Islam’s extremists, like all extremists, would like to speed their agenda along. . . If one side’s ideas are mayhem in service to transcendence and the other side is thinking about meetings and signed papers, then secular Western diplomacy is boxing with one glove.”
Obviously, I was writing specifically about jihad, but I think the argument could be made that the pronounced disdain for religion, which is increasingly hoisted as a standard for Western intellectualism, real or faux, exposes a potential fault-line in understanding, language and mindset that—if not overcome—could eventually set the very earth to trembling.
Last week, in these pages, Rusty Reno asked if the Tea Party had “a religion problem.” Another question might also be asked: shouldn’t voters consider whether decidedly irreligious (or expediently religious) political leaders are deficient in comprehension where it is most crucially needed in the twenty-first century? An American president who is able to speak the language of the believer—not mere words of casual observation or covert condescension, but the actual vocabulary of supernaturalism—may quite possibly be able cultivate a meeting of the minds within the Middle East, through the planting of seeds a secularist would not know to sow.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Keller in NYTimes
Kathleen Parker; Giving Up on God
Paul Krugman Space Alien Economy
Obama, Wright and the Times
War on Terror, Language of Faith
Reno; Tea Party a Religion Problem?
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.30.2011 | 7:41am
bill bannon says:
A very interesting read. No one will reach Al Qaeda with soft diplomacy (our CIA reached their number 2 man via drone this past week...a datum drowned out by the hurricane coverage) but the task of interacting with the Saudis and others who oppress Christians and others does need people of faith in our government as a starting point. The awful case of these hikers being sentenced to 8 years in Iran for spying might for all we know be a case wherein your thesis might make the difference especially at the intimate diplomatic level given that we have sanctions against Iran...(all young people who are magnetized by dangerous borders like Iran's or North Korea's...stop it...take up cliff diving). But our diplomats to such countries should actually be very theological people and the one to Iran should have read the best books on the Shiite position though State Dept.'s Philo Dibble probably has done the latter. Strangely though, Iran rather untheologically has broken treaties she signed and... the Sunni Al Qaeda leader we just killed had a
special relationship that permitted him free entrance and exit within Iran ( there is a
hadith that permits working with enemies for Islam and there is the Shiite belief in deception on behalf of Islam...tequiya...definite obstacles even for the softest of diplomats).
special relationship that permitted him free entrance and exit within Iran ( there is a
hadith that permits working with enemies for Islam and there is the Shiite belief in deception on behalf of Islam...tequiya...definite obstacles even for the softest of diplomats).
8.30.2011 | 9:19am
Patrick says:
Great observations, Elizabeth.
The importance of the language and understanding of faith in diplomacy is also well illustrated in Francis Rooney's recent reflection on the brilliant career of the late Papal Nuncio to the US, Archbishop Pietro Sambi:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/global-diplomacy-and-the-universal-church-the-career-of-pietro-sambi.
The importance of the language and understanding of faith in diplomacy is also well illustrated in Francis Rooney's recent reflection on the brilliant career of the late Papal Nuncio to the US, Archbishop Pietro Sambi:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/global-diplomacy-and-the-universal-church-the-career-of-pietro-sambi.
8.30.2011 | 10:24am
Barbara says:
Oh, I dunno: is it more charitable to say that Bill Keller is a bad satirist or a really great bigot? Having spent quality time in the East, I've observed a certain quality to the mindset, one that has fully embraced the intellectual lock-down of the right kind of bigotry. If you're smarter and more sophisticated than anyone else, your prejudices are perforce of a higher quality than those of the bitterclinging hoi poloi. It's like, Bill Keller's bigotry is so much better than, say, Michele Bachmann's tolerance because his bigotry emanates from the heady altitudes of Mount Olympus, a.k.a., high atop the New York Times editorial pages, not the mosquito-infested/snowbound wasteland of Bemiji, located somewhere in the wilds of the dreaded Upper Plains of the Slough of Despond, a.k.a. The Midwest. It's been distilled, refined in a way that makes stuff like Christ, the Holy Spirit, a.k.a. God, completely unnecessary for the Upper East Side Sophisticates, that is, if belief in God did actually do any good. For Bill Keller, the votes are in: Belief is the leading indicator of stupidity unless you're Episcopalian or Afrocentric Church of Christ.
I feel better now. As we say in Texas, when we're being really charitable, bless his heart, he needs to get out more.
I feel better now. As we say in Texas, when we're being really charitable, bless his heart, he needs to get out more.
8.30.2011 | 11:41am
M. Chen says:
My candidate of choice knows God and relies on Him. That's the only way to have true wisdom for governing.
@ Rick - I'd like to know how the Moroccans thrived under Khomeni. Also, I understand Jimmy Carter's religious views escalated abortion. Is that correct?
@ Barbara - I've been back in Texas for more than a year. I sure hope alot of you rubs off on me.
@ Rick - I'd like to know how the Moroccans thrived under Khomeni. Also, I understand Jimmy Carter's religious views escalated abortion. Is that correct?
@ Barbara - I've been back in Texas for more than a year. I sure hope alot of you rubs off on me.
8.30.2011 | 11:49am
Randy says:
Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Franciscan who wears a gray habit, has said that the more "Old World" and "Third World" the people he meets are--in New York City or around the World--the more respect they have for the habit he wears and for his life's vocation. I'm paraphrasing, but that was his point. It's not educated people like Keller that he receives respect from. It's primarily from common people who fondly remember their own traditions, and often not Catholic traditions. The poor (or once poor) understand more and appreciate more his Catholic vocation.
8.30.2011 | 12:01pm
Dean from Ohio says:
A few years ago, as I was standing in the foyer of my church, a book by Franklin Graham on display caught my eye. It had a photo of the earth from space on the cover, with the title, or so I first thought, "It's You Know Who". Actually, as I looked closer, I saw that the actual title was, "It's Who You Know," but the mistaken title stuck with me. It often comes to mind when I read about people like Bill Keller and Kathleen Parker.
When Bill Keller singles out Bible-believing Christians for ridicule and mentally mans the barricades against them, he is really acting out, I believe, his dread of the One who animates their faith and love. He hears the knock, and the phrase, "It's You Know Who!" echoes in his mind, and he fears and hates it. He covers his ears with his hands, rushes at the speaker and gathers electronic rocks to stone to death the one who reflected the divine countenance in his direction.
Kathleen Parker actions are more subtle, but just as perfidious. Although she exhibits the moral discernment of a falling autumn leaf, she is somehow swept into the high counsels of the Republican Party, all the while calling for spiritual, moral and cultural surrender at the first shot. Her undiscerning and now-defunct TV marriage to Eliot Spitzer nearly plumbed French depths in its moral faithlessness, so her eagerness to wave white and give up the good fight is sadly a good fit. I believe she too hears the voice, "It's You Know Who," and it is then that the claws come out.
Such talent, but controlled by a cruel and loveless master. May both of these truth-suppressors find Christ's grace, his love and his gift of kindness leading to repentance.
Thanks, Elizabeth!
When Bill Keller singles out Bible-believing Christians for ridicule and mentally mans the barricades against them, he is really acting out, I believe, his dread of the One who animates their faith and love. He hears the knock, and the phrase, "It's You Know Who!" echoes in his mind, and he fears and hates it. He covers his ears with his hands, rushes at the speaker and gathers electronic rocks to stone to death the one who reflected the divine countenance in his direction.
Kathleen Parker actions are more subtle, but just as perfidious. Although she exhibits the moral discernment of a falling autumn leaf, she is somehow swept into the high counsels of the Republican Party, all the while calling for spiritual, moral and cultural surrender at the first shot. Her undiscerning and now-defunct TV marriage to Eliot Spitzer nearly plumbed French depths in its moral faithlessness, so her eagerness to wave white and give up the good fight is sadly a good fit. I believe she too hears the voice, "It's You Know Who," and it is then that the claws come out.
Such talent, but controlled by a cruel and loveless master. May both of these truth-suppressors find Christ's grace, his love and his gift of kindness leading to repentance.
Thanks, Elizabeth!
8.30.2011 | 12:36pm
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth Scalia says: "Beginning his essay by making a sly—actually downright passive-aggressive—correlation between religious faith and belief in “space aliens” . . . "
I think Ms. Scalia is incorrect if she interprets Keller to be comparing ANY AND ALL religious beliefs to believing in space aliens. Or is she saying that NO religious beliefs may be compared to believing in space aliens? Are all religious beliefs to be regarded equally? For example, is the traditional Christian belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God to be given no more, and no less, respect than the Mormon belief that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates shown to him by the Angel Moroni? And how seriously do we have to take Scientology?
Keller refer's to Michele Bachmann's earlier claim to being "submissive" to her husband. I have to say that when Bachmann was asked about this in a debate, and the audience hissed and booed, Bachmann handled it brilliantly. But from a Christian point of view, her answer was utter baloney. The Christian idea of wives being submissive to husbands is not about "mutual respect." Check out the old online Catholic encyclopedia, for example:
*******
Thus her natural position is assigned to woman in every form of society that springs necessarily from the family. This position is described by St. Thomas Aquinas with classic clearness (Summa theol., I:92:1, ad 2um). This doctrine, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church, was repeatedly emphasized by Leo XIII. The encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880, declares: "The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty".
**********
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm
I think Ms. Scalia is incorrect if she interprets Keller to be comparing ANY AND ALL religious beliefs to believing in space aliens. Or is she saying that NO religious beliefs may be compared to believing in space aliens? Are all religious beliefs to be regarded equally? For example, is the traditional Christian belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God to be given no more, and no less, respect than the Mormon belief that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates shown to him by the Angel Moroni? And how seriously do we have to take Scientology?
Keller refer's to Michele Bachmann's earlier claim to being "submissive" to her husband. I have to say that when Bachmann was asked about this in a debate, and the audience hissed and booed, Bachmann handled it brilliantly. But from a Christian point of view, her answer was utter baloney. The Christian idea of wives being submissive to husbands is not about "mutual respect." Check out the old online Catholic encyclopedia, for example:
*******
Thus her natural position is assigned to woman in every form of society that springs necessarily from the family. This position is described by St. Thomas Aquinas with classic clearness (Summa theol., I:92:1, ad 2um). This doctrine, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church, was repeatedly emphasized by Leo XIII. The encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880, declares: "The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty".
**********
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm
8.30.2011 | 12:55pm
pentamom says:
"If you're smarter and more sophisticated than anyone else, your prejudices are perforce of a higher quality than those of the bitterclinging hoi poloi."
Absolutely brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
8.30.2011 | 1:04pm
Rick says:
@ Bill Bannon: "...and there is the Shiite belief in deception on behalf of Islam...tequiya...definite obstacles even for the softest of diplomats."
Actually, "taqiyya" is a principle that allows a muslim, particulary Shi'a muslims, to conceal or renounce their faith if failing to do so would cost them their lives in a situation of persecution. (The minority Shi'a population was frequently subjected to persecution by the majority Sunnis.) So, I don't think Western diplomats should have any problem from it. Unless, of course, a deranged American diplomat, in private negotiations with an Iranian diplomat were to produce a gun and threaten to kill the Iranian if he didn't renounce his faith. In that case, the Iranian would be justified, under the principle of taqiyya, in stating that he renounced his faith. Otherwise, our diplomats shouldn't have to worry about it. Of course, an Iranian diplomat might very well lie like a rug for other reasons, but he would not be practicing taqiyya.
@ M. Chen: "I'd like to know how the Moroccans thrived under Khomeni."
The Moroccan people never had the chance to thrive under Khomeni, even if that were possible, since Khomeni was the religious leader of Iran, not Morocco. Morocco continues to be ruled by an ancient dynasty of sherifian kings. At the time of the revolution, no-one could really predict the nature of the coming Islamic Republic in Iran, but there was feverish excitement that it MIGHT protend an improvement in the lot of poor muslims. I worked with handicapped children in the slums of Casablanca, and I can't blame them for grasping at any straw, no matter how slender, considering their pitiful circumstances.
"Also, I understand Jimmy Carter's religious views escalated abortion. Is that correct?"
I never heard Carter discuss abortion in his Bible study classes, but I find it hard to imagine how the religious views of a Southern Baptist could "escalate abortion." (Carter was quite orthodox as far as his Baptist belief was concerned.)
Actually, "taqiyya" is a principle that allows a muslim, particulary Shi'a muslims, to conceal or renounce their faith if failing to do so would cost them their lives in a situation of persecution. (The minority Shi'a population was frequently subjected to persecution by the majority Sunnis.) So, I don't think Western diplomats should have any problem from it. Unless, of course, a deranged American diplomat, in private negotiations with an Iranian diplomat were to produce a gun and threaten to kill the Iranian if he didn't renounce his faith. In that case, the Iranian would be justified, under the principle of taqiyya, in stating that he renounced his faith. Otherwise, our diplomats shouldn't have to worry about it. Of course, an Iranian diplomat might very well lie like a rug for other reasons, but he would not be practicing taqiyya.
@ M. Chen: "I'd like to know how the Moroccans thrived under Khomeni."
The Moroccan people never had the chance to thrive under Khomeni, even if that were possible, since Khomeni was the religious leader of Iran, not Morocco. Morocco continues to be ruled by an ancient dynasty of sherifian kings. At the time of the revolution, no-one could really predict the nature of the coming Islamic Republic in Iran, but there was feverish excitement that it MIGHT protend an improvement in the lot of poor muslims. I worked with handicapped children in the slums of Casablanca, and I can't blame them for grasping at any straw, no matter how slender, considering their pitiful circumstances.
"Also, I understand Jimmy Carter's religious views escalated abortion. Is that correct?"
I never heard Carter discuss abortion in his Bible study classes, but I find it hard to imagine how the religious views of a Southern Baptist could "escalate abortion." (Carter was quite orthodox as far as his Baptist belief was concerned.)
8.30.2011 | 1:49pm
R Hampton says:
Regardless of how some in the media want to present Republicans and Tea Partiers, there is a fundamental conflict between Science and Faith in the GOP. Young Earth Creationists have been quite vocal that the findings of Science should be disregarded if it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. While the one third of the public claim to a YEC view, among Republicans that jumps to 52% (Gallup poll. 12-7-2010)
“each time the scientific establishment issues a consensus understanding of what is found in nature, should Christians rethink their views on other issues of biblical importance, such as the virgin birth or Christ’s resurrection from the dead? Are we going to take our cosmology or the redemptive historical understanding of Scripture and submit these to interrogation by what we are told are the assured results of modern science? Doing so will certainly lead to disaster, to a head-on collision that should compel Christians to understand just what is at stake theologically and to be prepared to give biblically-sound answers.”
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D.
Why Does the Universe Look So Old? – The Theological Costs of Old-Earth Thinking
Good, bad, or otherwise this world view does have important implications:
“Are science and Christianity friends? The answer to that is an emphatic yes, for any true science will be perfectly compatible with the truths we know by God’s revelation. But this science is not naturalistic, while modern science usually is. Too many evangelicals try to find middle ground, only to end up arguing for positions that combine theological surrender with scientific naïveté. As Jerry Coyne makes very clear, there really is no middle ground.”
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D.
Science and Religion Aren’t Friends?
“each time the scientific establishment issues a consensus understanding of what is found in nature, should Christians rethink their views on other issues of biblical importance, such as the virgin birth or Christ’s resurrection from the dead? Are we going to take our cosmology or the redemptive historical understanding of Scripture and submit these to interrogation by what we are told are the assured results of modern science? Doing so will certainly lead to disaster, to a head-on collision that should compel Christians to understand just what is at stake theologically and to be prepared to give biblically-sound answers.”
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D.
Why Does the Universe Look So Old? – The Theological Costs of Old-Earth Thinking
Good, bad, or otherwise this world view does have important implications:
“Are science and Christianity friends? The answer to that is an emphatic yes, for any true science will be perfectly compatible with the truths we know by God’s revelation. But this science is not naturalistic, while modern science usually is. Too many evangelicals try to find middle ground, only to end up arguing for positions that combine theological surrender with scientific naïveté. As Jerry Coyne makes very clear, there really is no middle ground.”
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D.
Science and Religion Aren’t Friends?
8.30.2011 | 2:06pm
Resh Galuta says:
The fraction of the world which is impossible to understand without theological literacy is substantial, but shrinking rapidly. (Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, is there more?) If countries are weighted by economic importance, the fraction is already quite small.
It is true that the mainstream media did not pay much attention to the peculiarities of the Reverend Dr. Wright's doctrines. But that's because it was clearly understood by all participants that Obama's interest in his church had been predominantly political and his attendance demonstrably sporadic. This is probably Bill Keller's real goal in raising the issue: to put Republican candidates in the difficult position of having to admit that of course they don't believe a word of their churches' teachings; they're just there to be photographed, shake hands and project an image of honesty and respectability.
When Nicholas Sarkozy was campaigning to be President of France, he often mentioned his great respect and admiration for France's Catholic heritage. Then one day some wise guy asked him why he never goes to mass. Sarkozy, caught off guard, responded candidly that it's because he finds the homilies very boring.
It is true that the mainstream media did not pay much attention to the peculiarities of the Reverend Dr. Wright's doctrines. But that's because it was clearly understood by all participants that Obama's interest in his church had been predominantly political and his attendance demonstrably sporadic. This is probably Bill Keller's real goal in raising the issue: to put Republican candidates in the difficult position of having to admit that of course they don't believe a word of their churches' teachings; they're just there to be photographed, shake hands and project an image of honesty and respectability.
When Nicholas Sarkozy was campaigning to be President of France, he often mentioned his great respect and admiration for France's Catholic heritage. Then one day some wise guy asked him why he never goes to mass. Sarkozy, caught off guard, responded candidly that it's because he finds the homilies very boring.
8.30.2011 | 3:20pm
habeas says:
I read Keller's piece and took away a different reading. His central point seems to be that we should expect political candidates to be articulate about their religious beliefs on the campaign trail, and that the mainstream media should be asking more and better questions about religion. He may have made that point badly in his essay, but I heartily agree with the contention. The Times and other national papers usually do a mediocre-to-poor job of questioning candidates regarding religious practice and belief, instead of cherry-picking the elements of every belief "that seem bizarre to outsiders." Because of where we're at in the political cycle--the Republican presidential candidate primaries--of course these questions will be asked of Republicans now. Let's ask the Democrats similar pointed questions too, when the Congressional cycles begin, and all the third party candidates. The mainstream media can only be expected to become more knowledgeable about religion if readers demand that their coverage be detailed and well-grounded. And most average readers are pretty ignorant about any faiths outside their own immediate practice. Voters could be better-informed if the Times steps up to Keller's plate.
8.30.2011 | 4:20pm
bill bannon says:
@Rick. Actually it can be used in a broader sense of makr or deception. Wiki: "There is a second type of Taqiyya which shall be called "dissimulation" which is use of word or actions tending to mislead one's opponents.[7]
Kohlberg, Etan (1995). Secrecy and Concealment. Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 345.
Kohlberg, Etan (1995). Secrecy and Concealment. Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 345.
8.30.2011 | 4:51pm
harry says:
Is believing God created the Universe fanatical? Is the Universe having a beginning a fanatical and/or stupid belief? The current scientific consensus, for the most part, is that it began with the “Big Bang.”
One can argue that the singularity that suddenly and inexplicably exploded always was (actually it seems to have been an amazingly finely tuned, albeit very rapid, expansion rather than a chaotic explosion). The question then becomes why would it suddenly “explode” after an eternity of just sitting there?
Or one can argue for a “pulsating” Universe, where the “Bang” which results in the Universe ultimately contracts again into a singularity which eventually goes “Bang!” again, and that the Universe we observe is just the latest “pulse,” but this notion is not supported by the fact that the Universe is expanding at a rate which seems to prohibit its eventual contraction. If one believes the “pulsating” Universe theory is correct in spite of that problem, one could assume that the ”stuff” that makes up the natural Universe, in an expanded or contracted state, always was.
What is so superior and sophisticated about believing that “stuff” always was? Nothing. What is so stupid and unsophisticated about believing the Universe had a beginning? Nothing. I think the desire to believe the Universe always was springs from the fact that as soon as one concedes that the Universe had a beginning, one is faced with the obvious fact that its origin had to be in something beyond nature, something that transcends nature, since there was nothing natural in existence to bring nature about before the natural Universe began. In other words, one has to admit that there must be a supernatural reality if the Universe had a beginning.
That notion does not frighten the daylights out of some of us. It quite reasonably follows from the Universe having a beginning. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that the “stuff” that makes up the Universe (in an expanded or contracted state) had no beginning. There IS evidence that the Universe began with the “Big Bang,” none that proves that the “stuff” that went “Bang!” always was. Believing it had a beginning does not contradict science in any way. The implications of that contradict the atheistic/philosophical beliefs of many political commentators.
As for the two, contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis being historical and literal, the Church Fathers were not unanimous about that belief. Augustine cautioned against taking them too literally. Orthodox Catholics, in their interpretation of the Bible, are limited by the requirement that our interpretation does not contradict the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers (although many modern Catholic Scripture scholars seem to have lost sight of that fact, which was dogmatically declared at the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.) The Church Fathers, and orthodox Catholics, unanimously believe that God created the Universe. (God being the preexisting “supernatural reality” mentioned earlier.) Catholic politicians should happily and unashamedly confess that belief even if that makes them a “creationist” according to some political commentators. Catholic politicians can afford to write off the “militant atheist” vote.
And yes, since the vast majority of the people inhabiting this planet quite reasonably believe in God, an atheist diplomat is not going to be able to understand where those from cultures outside our own are coming from as well as a theist would.
One can argue that the singularity that suddenly and inexplicably exploded always was (actually it seems to have been an amazingly finely tuned, albeit very rapid, expansion rather than a chaotic explosion). The question then becomes why would it suddenly “explode” after an eternity of just sitting there?
Or one can argue for a “pulsating” Universe, where the “Bang” which results in the Universe ultimately contracts again into a singularity which eventually goes “Bang!” again, and that the Universe we observe is just the latest “pulse,” but this notion is not supported by the fact that the Universe is expanding at a rate which seems to prohibit its eventual contraction. If one believes the “pulsating” Universe theory is correct in spite of that problem, one could assume that the ”stuff” that makes up the natural Universe, in an expanded or contracted state, always was.
What is so superior and sophisticated about believing that “stuff” always was? Nothing. What is so stupid and unsophisticated about believing the Universe had a beginning? Nothing. I think the desire to believe the Universe always was springs from the fact that as soon as one concedes that the Universe had a beginning, one is faced with the obvious fact that its origin had to be in something beyond nature, something that transcends nature, since there was nothing natural in existence to bring nature about before the natural Universe began. In other words, one has to admit that there must be a supernatural reality if the Universe had a beginning.
That notion does not frighten the daylights out of some of us. It quite reasonably follows from the Universe having a beginning. There is no overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that the “stuff” that makes up the Universe (in an expanded or contracted state) had no beginning. There IS evidence that the Universe began with the “Big Bang,” none that proves that the “stuff” that went “Bang!” always was. Believing it had a beginning does not contradict science in any way. The implications of that contradict the atheistic/philosophical beliefs of many political commentators.
As for the two, contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis being historical and literal, the Church Fathers were not unanimous about that belief. Augustine cautioned against taking them too literally. Orthodox Catholics, in their interpretation of the Bible, are limited by the requirement that our interpretation does not contradict the unanimous belief of the Church Fathers (although many modern Catholic Scripture scholars seem to have lost sight of that fact, which was dogmatically declared at the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.) The Church Fathers, and orthodox Catholics, unanimously believe that God created the Universe. (God being the preexisting “supernatural reality” mentioned earlier.) Catholic politicians should happily and unashamedly confess that belief even if that makes them a “creationist” according to some political commentators. Catholic politicians can afford to write off the “militant atheist” vote.
And yes, since the vast majority of the people inhabiting this planet quite reasonably believe in God, an atheist diplomat is not going to be able to understand where those from cultures outside our own are coming from as well as a theist would.
8.30.2011 | 5:01pm
Rick says:
@ Bill bannon: Interesting. I've never heard of the use of "taqiyya" for anything other than concealment of religious belief in times of persecution. However, if Iranian diplomats or politicians practiced the clever use of words to mislead their opponents or their electorate, I can't imagine it would be greatly different from the practices of our own politicians.
By the way, you might be interested in the discussion of the form known as "kitman" which Czeslaw Milosz used to describe the practice of concealing true opinions by people living under Stalinism in his brilliant book, "The Captive Mind".
By the way, you might be interested in the discussion of the form known as "kitman" which Czeslaw Milosz used to describe the practice of concealing true opinions by people living under Stalinism in his brilliant book, "The Captive Mind".
8.30.2011 | 5:39pm
bill bannon says:
@Rick Deception is mideastern and biblical....not simply muslim. They however called Allah the greatest of deceivers which the Jews did not of Jahweh though one prophet says, " You have deceived me and I am deceived". Abraham telling kings that Sarah was his sister...Judith leading on Holofernes until she could cut off his head...reminiscent of the hadith in which Mohammed asks if anyone will kill a certain person who has offended Allah and the prophet whereupon a man volunteers, pretends to be friendly to the victim, then kills him. Years ago I had a big business transaction with a woman from India in which she ate up my commission only time for days and knew it and then demanded half my commission and no tax and asked me to present these terms to the president. I did. He in essence said to tell her to drop dead which I translated to her as never to approach our business again with her blackmail tactics. She on the phone softly replied, " Put the order through....you will receive a check this week....now we know you have tried everything.". I said, "WHAT?". She said, " You will have no more trouble...put the order through...now we know you have done your best.". I left the building after telling my superior that against company rules, I was going for two shots of rye. He laughed. We had all traveled to Bombay without leaving N.Y. through encountering a woman and the deceptions of in this case....India. Her goal all along was to read our anger and its nuances as to whether she were getting the best price. If we had not gotten angry, she and her money would have vanished.
8.30.2011 | 7:24pm
Jay says:
An American president who is able to speak the language of the believer...may quite possibly be able cultivate a meeting of the minds within the Middle East, through the planting of seeds a secularist would not know to sow.
Spot on, Elizabeth Scalia.
Rick Unfortunately, he [President Jimmy Carter] inherited the Shah as an ally, and so became a casualty of the Iranian revolution.
Is Carter really a casualty of the Iranian revolution or part of the problem in the demise of America's image in the Arab world? Bernard Lewis, in his book The Crisis of Islam described that when the Iranian Revolution happened, the U.S. administration did not offer asylum to the shah and his family until much later when the shah needed medical care. The actions of the U.S. has given a negative light to the Arab world that it can use and dispose of rulers as mere puppets. My Arab colleagues, though enlightened by Western ideas and embrace democracy, laments over this.
Spot on, Elizabeth Scalia.
Rick Unfortunately, he [President Jimmy Carter] inherited the Shah as an ally, and so became a casualty of the Iranian revolution.
Is Carter really a casualty of the Iranian revolution or part of the problem in the demise of America's image in the Arab world? Bernard Lewis, in his book The Crisis of Islam described that when the Iranian Revolution happened, the U.S. administration did not offer asylum to the shah and his family until much later when the shah needed medical care. The actions of the U.S. has given a negative light to the Arab world that it can use and dispose of rulers as mere puppets. My Arab colleagues, though enlightened by Western ideas and embrace democracy, laments over this.
8.30.2011 | 11:40pm
mrsschiavolin says:
Barbara: "bitterclinging" is the best neologism I've seen all year!
8.31.2011 | 2:12am
Rick says:
@ Bill bannon: Great story. I was trained in bargaining techniques for two years in Morocco. Arab merchants were my tutors. It has given me a certain edge in negotiations ever since.
@ Jay: Carter faced the same problem in the Iranian revolution that Obama just faced with the Egyptian revolution: a typhoon of popular discontent and revolution against a hated tyrant. Unfortunately, in each case the tyrant was a close ally of ours. The tyrant looked after our interests in their part of the world, often did our bidding, and persecuted our enemies. Realpolitik dictated that we maintain those friendships. The same Realpolitic dictated that we jettison them when the tide turned. The damage was already done, though, because we were identified with the tyrants in the minds of the common people--the ones who carried out the revolutions. And of course, first supporting a leader and then throwing him under the bus is always bad for your reputation in other parts of the world. I sincerely believe that we would do better in the long run if we chose our friends more wisely and put honor and ethics above Realpolitik, but I'm a dreamer, you know.
The shah was welcomed more quickly to Morocco than to America after he fled Iran. He arrived in Morocco, while I was still there, as a guest of King Hassan II, the father of the current king. There were wild protests and demonstrations against his presence, demonstrations that were put down with brutal efficiency by the police.
However, a very clever joke went around at that time: The king met the shah at the airport in Rabat and escorted him to the guest palace. (There is, by the way, a Ministry of Palaces charged with caring for the king's global network of palaces.) When they were alone, the king remarked that he saw the shah had brought just two large suitcases with him. "I'm curious. What did you decide to bring with you from Iran? The shah opened the first suitcase, which was revealed to be full of his dress uniforms, casual wear, underwear, and so forth. "Well, that's reasonable," the king said. "Now, what's in the other one?" The shah opened the second suitcase, revealing it to be completely empty. "But why did you bring an empty suitcase with you?" the astonished king asked. "Oh..." the shah said morosely, "this suitcase is for you."
@ Jay: Carter faced the same problem in the Iranian revolution that Obama just faced with the Egyptian revolution: a typhoon of popular discontent and revolution against a hated tyrant. Unfortunately, in each case the tyrant was a close ally of ours. The tyrant looked after our interests in their part of the world, often did our bidding, and persecuted our enemies. Realpolitik dictated that we maintain those friendships. The same Realpolitic dictated that we jettison them when the tide turned. The damage was already done, though, because we were identified with the tyrants in the minds of the common people--the ones who carried out the revolutions. And of course, first supporting a leader and then throwing him under the bus is always bad for your reputation in other parts of the world. I sincerely believe that we would do better in the long run if we chose our friends more wisely and put honor and ethics above Realpolitik, but I'm a dreamer, you know.
The shah was welcomed more quickly to Morocco than to America after he fled Iran. He arrived in Morocco, while I was still there, as a guest of King Hassan II, the father of the current king. There were wild protests and demonstrations against his presence, demonstrations that were put down with brutal efficiency by the police.
However, a very clever joke went around at that time: The king met the shah at the airport in Rabat and escorted him to the guest palace. (There is, by the way, a Ministry of Palaces charged with caring for the king's global network of palaces.) When they were alone, the king remarked that he saw the shah had brought just two large suitcases with him. "I'm curious. What did you decide to bring with you from Iran? The shah opened the first suitcase, which was revealed to be full of his dress uniforms, casual wear, underwear, and so forth. "Well, that's reasonable," the king said. "Now, what's in the other one?" The shah opened the second suitcase, revealing it to be completely empty. "But why did you bring an empty suitcase with you?" the astonished king asked. "Oh..." the shah said morosely, "this suitcase is for you."
8.31.2011 | 7:26am
Resh Galuta says:
@harry, there is nothing "stupid" about believing the Universe had a beginning, just somewhat muddled. What is it that the believer believes to have had a beginning? Condensed matter? Energy-momentum? Almost everybody believes those had a beginning.
Did spacetime have a beginning? What does it mean for time to have a beginning? How about the laws of thermodynamics, did they have a beginning? Surely entropy was destined to increase in the Universe before any Universe existed. Was the Pythagorean Theorem true before any two-dimensional plane existed in which triangles could exist? How about integers and primeness. Was 7 prime before integers existed or have integers always existed, even before there was anything for them to count?
If "the Universe" merely means "all matter we can detect," then saying it had a beginning is a truism. If "the Universe" includes matter, time, algorithms, laws of nature and God Himself, then anybody who says it had a beginning should be asked what the Sam Hill he's talking about.
Did spacetime have a beginning? What does it mean for time to have a beginning? How about the laws of thermodynamics, did they have a beginning? Surely entropy was destined to increase in the Universe before any Universe existed. Was the Pythagorean Theorem true before any two-dimensional plane existed in which triangles could exist? How about integers and primeness. Was 7 prime before integers existed or have integers always existed, even before there was anything for them to count?
If "the Universe" merely means "all matter we can detect," then saying it had a beginning is a truism. If "the Universe" includes matter, time, algorithms, laws of nature and God Himself, then anybody who says it had a beginning should be asked what the Sam Hill he's talking about.
8.31.2011 | 12:43pm
harry says:
Hello, Resh Galuta,
God, by definition, has no beginning. There couldn't have been "laws of nature" before there was nature. Nor could there have been "time" or "matter." "The Universe" does indeed include those things; if the Universe had a beginning so did they. As for "algorithms" existing before there was nature, for the believer they must have existed in the intellect of the Omniscient God, just as did His understanding of the "laws of nature" even though such laws didn't exist in nature before it was created.
My point was to assert the reasonableness of the proposition that if nature had a beginning, if at some point it wasn't and then it was, then its origin had to be in something outside of nature, or something "supernatural," as it couldn't have been brought about by natural means before there was nature; the point was also that contemporary science indicates that the Universe began with the Big Bang, but has not demonstrated that the "stuff" that went "Bang!" existed eternally.
God, by definition, has no beginning. There couldn't have been "laws of nature" before there was nature. Nor could there have been "time" or "matter." "The Universe" does indeed include those things; if the Universe had a beginning so did they. As for "algorithms" existing before there was nature, for the believer they must have existed in the intellect of the Omniscient God, just as did His understanding of the "laws of nature" even though such laws didn't exist in nature before it was created.
My point was to assert the reasonableness of the proposition that if nature had a beginning, if at some point it wasn't and then it was, then its origin had to be in something outside of nature, or something "supernatural," as it couldn't have been brought about by natural means before there was nature; the point was also that contemporary science indicates that the Universe began with the Big Bang, but has not demonstrated that the "stuff" that went "Bang!" existed eternally.
8.31.2011 | 2:32pm
M. Chen says:
@ Rick - "It was irresistible for the poor (that is, most of Moroccan society) to see it as a great blow struck in their favor, and against the corrupt, Westernized elites who lorded it over them from their palaces."
I might have misunderstood your point in this statement, but if the westernized elites were able to lord it over the impoverished of Morocco, then wouldn't it follow that the new gov't with Khomeni as the theocratic leader would be able to affect the lives of the impoverished in Morocco. I agree with you they would be looking to anything with hope.
As for Jimmy Carter's presidency, I understand his funding of abortions with federal money grew. My memory and source could be incorrect.
I might have misunderstood your point in this statement, but if the westernized elites were able to lord it over the impoverished of Morocco, then wouldn't it follow that the new gov't with Khomeni as the theocratic leader would be able to affect the lives of the impoverished in Morocco. I agree with you they would be looking to anything with hope.
As for Jimmy Carter's presidency, I understand his funding of abortions with federal money grew. My memory and source could be incorrect.
9.1.2011 | 3:17am
Rick says:
@ M Chen: The Iranian revolution sparked great excitement among the poor of Morocco, and the "westernized elites" I referred to were the elites of Morocco. I just can't understand how, vicarious excitement notwithstanding, Khomeni's theocracy thousands of miles away in Iran could have any authority or material effect on the poor of Morocco. It had none. How could it?
The dynasty of kings in power in Morocco also has a great advantage over the shah's rule: it is an authentic and ancient Islamic dynasty that was not put in power with the help of the CIA. It had, and still has, greater authenticity in the eyes of the people, despite the abuses and discontents. The "Arab Spring" is unlikely to lead to a full-blow revolution there, although King Muhammed VI has felt obliged to revamp the constitution and cede some powers as a result of recent protests.
The dynasty of kings in power in Morocco also has a great advantage over the shah's rule: it is an authentic and ancient Islamic dynasty that was not put in power with the help of the CIA. It had, and still has, greater authenticity in the eyes of the people, despite the abuses and discontents. The "Arab Spring" is unlikely to lead to a full-blow revolution there, although King Muhammed VI has felt obliged to revamp the constitution and cede some powers as a result of recent protests.
9.2.2011 | 2:22am
Jay says:
Ricky: "we would do better in the long run if we chose our friends more wisely and put honor and ethics above Realpolitik"
Agreed. In addition, our future President (I'm hoping Obama is a one term) needs to press for religious freedom in the Middle East as all other 'rights' follow. I know it is walking on thin ice since America has its own interests by supporting dictators (Qaddafi and Assad) persecuting their own people. But using religious freedom as a springboard for dialogue would insure true freedom for all.
The future President should read Pope Benedict XVI's "World Day of Peace" address:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20101208_xliv-world-day-peace_en.html
Agreed. In addition, our future President (I'm hoping Obama is a one term) needs to press for religious freedom in the Middle East as all other 'rights' follow. I know it is walking on thin ice since America has its own interests by supporting dictators (Qaddafi and Assad) persecuting their own people. But using religious freedom as a springboard for dialogue would insure true freedom for all.
The future President should read Pope Benedict XVI's "World Day of Peace" address:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20101208_xliv-world-day-peace_en.html
9.7.2011 | 4:38am
Lula Friel says:
The Moroccan people never had the chance to thrive under Khomeni, even if that were possible, since Khomeni was the religious leader of Iran, not Morocco. Morocco continues to be ruled by an ancient dynasty of sherifian kings. At the time of the revolution, no-one could really predict the nature of the coming Islamic Republic in Iran, but there was feverish excitement that it MIGHT protend an improvement in the lot of poor muslims. I worked with handicapped children in the slums of Casablanca, and I can't blame them for grasping at any straw, no matter how slender, considering their pitiful circumstances. I think Ms. Scalia is incorrect if she interprets Keller to be comparing ANY AND ALL religious beliefs to believing in space aliens. Or is she saying that NO religious beliefs may be compared to believing in space aliens? Are all religious beliefs to be regarded equally? For example, is the traditional Christian belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God to be given no more, and no less, respect than the Mormon belief that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates shown to him by the Angel Moroni? And how seriously do we have to take Scientology?
America's first rude awakening to the relevance of religious revivalism in world affairs came with the Iranian revolution of 1979. When America’s ally, the Shah, was overthrown in a populist Islamic revolution, the American foreign policy establishment was caught completely off guard. One reason for this was their inability, at the time, to believe that religion could still be a powerful force in world affairs. That was thought to be a relic of the distant past. How times have changed! Former U.S. Secretaries of State are now writing books about the importance of religion in foreign affairs.
I was living in Morocco at the time of the Iranian revolution, and the shock waves from the event went through Moroccan society like a major earthquake. It was irresistible for the poor (that is, most of Moroccan society) to see it as a great blow struck in their favor, and against the corrupt, Westernized elites who lorded it over them from their palaces.
Jimmy Carter was probably the first modern American president to bring his faith actively into the White House. (I have occasionally visited his Bible study class at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, and he is quite a good Bible teacher.) This religious sensitivity and acumen was probably one element in his success in bringing about a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Unfortunately, he inherited the Shah as an ally, and so became a casualty of the Iranian revolution.